Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Neighborhood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed duplexes at 6636 N. 30th Ave.; council lays over rezoning to April 29
Summary
Neighbors and residents urged the City Council to deny a rezoning that would permit two duplexes at 6636 North 30th Avenue, citing parking, storm-shelter and neighborhood-character concerns. The council voted 6–1 to lay the request over to April 29 to give the developer time to meet neighbors and respond.
Neighbors of 6636 North 30th Avenue urged the Omaha City Council on April 8 to deny a rezoning request that would allow two duplexes on the lot, arguing the proposal would add vehicles, reduce outdoor space and change neighborhood character. Residents cited insufficient yard space, parking strain, tornado-shelter concerns for upper-level sleeping areas and a lack of developer outreach.
Why it matters: a zoning change from R4 to R5 would permit duplex construction described by opponents as “multifamily” for the site. Neighbors said the lot is too small for two duplexes and raised questions about how many vehicles and occupants could occupy the proposed units, the absence of basement storm shelters for upper floors, and loss of green space.
What was said: April Sloan and other neighbors testified they oppose the rezoning. Scott Krejci and additional residents described concerns about parking, the number of bedrooms (as presented to Planning Board), the lack of a basement or dedicated shelter for upper-floor occupants, and that the applicant had not met with neighbors after the Planning Board hearing. Councilmember Johnson and others echoed concerns about the applicant’s absence from the hearing and urged more outreach.
Staff response: City Planner Dave Fanslau explained that the Planning Department views the request as a simple, low-density residential rezoning (R4 to R5), that R5 is considered low-density and that under Chapter 55 zoning rules a rezoning that is master-plan compliant must be recommended for approval; staff and the Planning Board recommended approval. Fanslau also said the city cannot attach conditions to a rezoning for specific building design, and that site-plan-level issues (parking surface, elevations, storm-shelter details) are addressed at the building-permit or site-plan stage.
Council action: Councilmember Johnson moved to deny the rezoning; the motion received no second and died. Councilmember Melton then moved to lay the item over; after discussion a substitute motion to lay over to April 29 passed on roll call 6–1 (Begley voting no). The council recorded that the item is to return on April 29 and that the developer should be encouraged to meet neighbors before that date.
Next steps and context: A layover means the request remains pending; the applicant may revise materials or conduct community outreach before the council’s next hearing. Staff noted the master plan and zoning code limit when conditions may be attached to a rezoning and that site-specific design details are addressed later in the permitting process.
